I too hope that it's a spin-off game along the lines of New Vegas, rather than any of the approaches you mentioned. If it is a regular game, a la New Vegas, I think that'd be interesting; going back in the timeline, since most of the canonical games have kept moving things forward.

I've always liked the idea of Fallout being co-op, but not MMO. MMO would create an overpopulated wasteland, which would take away from the overall feel of the game, whereas a co-op would make it feel like you and your friend/s against the world (similar to Dark Souls).

Changes the entire dynamic of the game. In New Vegas, you made decisions about who ran the Strip and Hoover Dam. When you have an MMO world, it has to account for every decision because people will make different decisions. So the world itself can't really be shaped by your actions and has to be everything to everyone.

Kenny wrote:Changes the entire dynamic of the game. In New Vegas, you made decisions about who ran the Strip and Hoover Dam. When you have an MMO world, it has to account for every decision because people will make different decisions. So the world itself can't really be shaped by your actions and has to be everything to everyone.

Huh, that's quite disappointing if they do go that direction. He're hoping for classic single player campaign.

I've enjoyed Skyrim, and ESO, as well as Fallout 4. ESO is actually underrated in my opinion, the amount of content is insane. Not only that, the entire game can be played with a friend (All content outside of the main mission). It also is harder than most new MMORPG's, Blade & Soul, Black Desert Online, etc are a cakewalk.

Just not sure where all the hate comes from.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

I enjoyed Fallout 3, and to a lesser extent Fallout 4 and Skyrim, but I see where the Bethesda hate comes from. While Fallout 3 somewhat captures the aesthetic and takes place in the same narrative universe as previous Fallout titles, it retains almost none of the gameplay mechanics. The first two Fallout games were cult classics so most people don't care but OG fans dislike Bethesda's direction because instead of making a deep RPG loaded with player choice and reasons to replay the game, they made a Fallout-themed Oblivion.

Bethesda games tend to be chock full of content and appealing to the masses, but are generally riddled with bugs, have shallow gameplay and tell nonsensical stories. While they do what they do well, their direction towards always appealing to the lowest common denominator have led to games that I've found easy to like but hard to love..

New Vegas is my personal favorite because it captures the best of both worlds, offering both the open-world perspective and accessible gameplay of Fallout 3, while bringing back many of the RPG elements present in the first two games. It's not as focused as Fallout 3 or as deep as the first two games, but I would love to see Obsidian get another shot to make a Fallout spin-off.

I would honestly recommend Fallout 4 as a starting point. Though it's not my favorite Fallout game, it's the newest, has the best combat, and isn't nearly as dated. If you all in love with the concept, like I did with Fallout 3, then I'd recommend playing 3 and New Vegas. Fallout 1 and 2 are also wonderful games, but they are completely different, and you probably won't like them unless you have the patience for a 90's isometric turn-based RPG.

It comes down to the fact that Bethesda aren't the originators of the franchise. That means the changes they've made are seen as an affront to the original games, or at the very least, not a true continuation of the lore. The change in genre from a more traditional RPG with turn-based combat to an action RPG with shooter elements ("Elder Scrolls with guns" is a common criticism, though people have also used the phrase more positively) was a big deal, certainly at first. A few changes to the lore, and moving the setting of the series to the East coast, also rubbed people the wrong way.

Conversely, some of the key people at Obsidian who worked on New Vegas used to work at Black Isle and have a history with the series. As such, even though FNV basically played the same as FO3 in large part (albeit with a few new mechanics), it was better received because it was a more familiar setting, and made by the "right people".

Bethesda has made some choices that are questionable, or at least not going to be popular with everyone, but it fits within the established lore and canon better than is often suggested. I think some of the changes were necessary in order to avoid being repetitive, and the move to the East coast also helps to avoid a few contradictions and flat out retcons. That's not to say there aren't some issues with plot holes and certain premises, but as I said, I think they get a bad rap. It's inevitable when you have a passionate fanbase with specific ideas about how the games, stories, and lore should be, not to mention a lot of nostalgia for the original classics.

Lamrock wrote:Bethesda games tend to be chock full of content and appealing to the masses, but are generally riddled with bugs, have shallow gameplay and tell nonsensical stories. While they do what they do well, their direction towards always appealing to the lowest common denominator have led to games that I've found easy to like but hard to love..

I think If I could change one thing in ESO, it would be the battle mechanics. While the world/enemies are more than acceptable graphically for an MMO, I think that the combat could have been a bit more involved. That's not to say that battles don't take strategy, as many take quite a bit of strategy, and when playing with a friend your typical tanking/kiting techniques are absolutely necessary. The level of detail in the worlds are pretty awesome at times. The typical mundane, blah missions (outside of the main missions) exist, which is kind of the norm now.

So if the hate is derived from almost a "sell-out" POV, like just trying to appeal to the masses in turn making the game kind of lack of originality, I guess I could see that.

"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

There are definitely legitimate criticisms, but there's a lot of dislike and putting Bethesda's games down on principle, too. This post from the Fallout Reddit sums up the issues with the "not real Fallout games" stance quite well, in my opinion:

FFF12321 wrote:Games and franchises should be free to change. Is FF7 less of a Final Fantasy game because it didn't have a job system and had ATB instead of turnbased combat like the first few games? Or because it was a mix of sci go and fantasy that wasn't present in the earlier games?

Fallout is no different. FO3 and onwards were FPS instead of isometric turn based games. FONV basically scrapped karma in favor of faction reputation. FO4 added base building and dropped skills but way vamped the perk system and tried some different things with how it handled dialog. You may not like the changes, and that's fair, but FO4 is still a Fallout game. If you want to go play in older systems, then go for it. The rest of us that still enjoy the franchise will continue to play the new games and take them for what they are instead of expecting the same game with a new skin on it.

Reflecting upon it, I believe that was one of my main problems with Fallout 4. It made some changes from 3 and NV, some good, some bad, but the point is that there were changes, which didn't gel with what I was hoping for if I'm to be completely honest: basically those games again, only with better graphics and a new story. Again, that doesn't mean all the changes were necessarily good, and as that post says, there's nothing wrong with preferring things about older games. We can definitely relate to that here in the basketball gaming community. At the same time, it's easy to be stubborn about the way things should be, which is ironic since when developers do basically give us the same thing with a new skin, we complain about laziness and a lack of innovation.